You are here

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominee

The alt left is a word but there is no group of people who associate with that word and therefore there is no possible definition nor a limit to any definition -- it is whatever the users of the word want it to be and can be applied to whomever they feel like.

"The alt left is a word but there is no group of people who associate with that word and therefore there is no possible definition nor a limit to any definition -- it is whatever the users of the word want it to be and can be applied to whomever they feel like. The word alt left is a right-wing word that we do not need and so the difficulty of defining it is not ours. when it is used in a serious context, it is only possible to say that there is no such movement, identity, or group but that it is an epithet to create a foil for the alt right, a collective word for left groups the right does not seek to understand or define, or a fantasy used to create an equivalency."

This is nicely worded, but it seems to me that this applies equally to the alt-right. Richard Spencer and his idiot legions put it forward as a term, but it is routinely applied, by the MSM, and by leftists, to groups and individuals that do not self identify as alt-right. Breitbart does not identify as alt-right. Neither does Jordan Peterson, but I've seen them both describes as such many times in both US and Canadian media.

In straight propoganda terms, alt-left, when used by Trump or conservative media, is meant to refer to antifa and their fellow travellers.

Magoo: The way I look at it, if someone doesn't say they are alt-right, or a dictator, and we think they are, the onus is on us to argue it, and to respond carefully to the distinctions they make. Not impossible to make the argument that someone is alt-right who says they are not, for example, but we have an obligation to prove it, carefully and fairly, based on what they actually say and do. Necessarily this has to involve a discussion of our definitions of the label we are applying to them as well.

MIKE ELK: Well, I think what a vote like this shows, is that the corporate wing of the Democratic Party is still very much alive. You know, a lot of people have said after the election that the Clinton wing is discredited. But here in Baltimore, we're showing that they still have power, they're still trenched in, and they'll still take votes against workers' interests.

How disastrous is this in a state like Maryland, which is held by a Republican Governor, Larry Hogan that the Democrats would come out against something like this? You know, obviously, these kinds of minimum wage laws; they're very, very popular among voters. Well over 60% in almost every opinion poll...

quote:

MIKE ELK: Well, I mean, it's absurd. I mean, look, you know, right down in D.C., they passed a $15 an hour minimum wage. But when they tried to come out to the suburbs, to Montgomery County, the county council there passed $15 an hour, and then it was vetoed by the county executive, as well as many leaders from Prince George's County, Democratic Party have been opposed to it.

I mean, if D.C., you know, just an hour down the road, has $15 minimum wage, what effect would it have on the suburbs? And instead of, you know, the Democratic Party in Maryland getting together, and having a coordinated strategy to go against, and get all these counties, what they're now trying to do, many of the Democrats in the State Legislature, is pass laws that forbid municipalities from raising their own wages.

I mean, this is something we see Republicans doing all throughout the South, and even in the North.

Magoo: The way I look at it, if someone doesn't say they are alt-right, or a dictator, and we think they are, the onus is on us to argue it, and to respond carefully to the distinctions they make. Not impossible to make the argument that someone is alt-right who says they are not, for example, but we have an obligation to prove it, carefully and fairly, based on what they actually say and do. Necessarily this has to involve a discussion of our definitions of the label we are applying to them as well.

What is the definitive definition for "alt right"?

As I understood it this term is one to avoid others. It was offered by some who want to wear the term and so it is based on their definition. that is problematic of course. They are many flavours of alt right as the term is loose. Theya re "far right" outside mainstream conservatives. Beyond that a specific definition is elusive -- unlike fascist and other terms.

Dictator nad other terms have more specific and objective definitions to work with.

Last Friday, Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) introduced the Off Fossil Fuels for a Better Future Act (OFF Act). This visionary bill comes as the nation bears witness to the devastation brought by the climate change-super charged storm Harvey to Texas and Louisiana and braces for Irma’s impacts. Storms like this and other extreme weather events will become all the more frequent and intense unless bold action is taken. Gabbard’s bill – the strongest yet introduced in Congress – will put us on a path towards avoiding increased climate chaos: It will place a moratorium on new fossil fuel projects and move the country to 100% renewable energy by 2035, with a focus on a rapid transition in the next ten years. The bill is co-sponsored by Representatives Nanette Barragan (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Keith Ellison (D-MN), and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL).

This legislation could not be more needed. While the impacts of Harvey are readily apparent to all, it is not an isolated occurrence. Evidence continues to build of the severity and urgency of the climate crisis. And while Trump flew to Texas and talked about helping communities there, he and fossil fuel-funded members of Congress continue to put the planet on a collision course with climate chaos. They deny climate change and are suppressing our government’s ability to address it; they are moving to increase drilling and fracking on public lands and off our coasts; they are promoting development of more pipelines; and they are exporting more oil and gas abroad while wrecking the environment here at home.

In this dysfunctional political environment, a broad movement has grown to resist Trump’s foolish and dangerous agenda. Hundreds of thousands of people have marched in the streets in D.C. and across the country. Thousands more have called members of Congress, written letters, and gone to town halls and community meetings opposing this destructive agenda. This is heartening and powerful, but we must do more.

To win on climate – to really move off of fossil fuels and transition our economy to 100% renewable energy on a time frame that will actually prevent even greater climate catastrophe – we must continue to resist Trump’s agenda, but we need to do more than that: We need to propel a bold agenda for addressing the crisis – one that will protect our communities while creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs in the renewables and energy efficiency sectors. This agenda must center racial and economic justice and cannot rely on false market solutions like carbon trading and taxing programs, which are simply corporate pay-to-pollute schemes. What we need is nothing short of a World War II-scale mobilization of our economy around a quick and just transition off fossil fuels and onto 100% renewable energy now.

Rep. Gabbard’s OFF Act is a critical step towards that mobilization. It requires 100% renewable energy by 2035 (and 80% by 2027), places a moratorium on new fossil fuel projects, bans the export of oil and gas, and also moves our automobile and rail systems to 100% renewable energy. Additionally, it provides for a truly just transition for environmental justice communities and those working in the fossil fuel industry. The bill requires that people in impacted communities have a leading role in the development and implementation of clean energy plans and regulations, and establishes an equitable transition fund and workforce development center, paid for by closing an offshore tax loophole and repealing federal tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry.

Now we must mobalize to build support for this bill. Though the prospects of passing anything in Congress right now are grim, moving members of Congress to support the OFF Act and elevating its profile are important for three reasons:

1) Create Political Consensus for Rapid Transition to 100% Renewable Energy Now

Six years ago, when Food & Water Watch followed the lead of our grassroots partners to become the first national organization to call for a ban on fracking, conventional wisdom dictated that fracked gas was an environmentally friendly “bridge fuel.” There was lots of support for stronger regulations on fracking, but little serious talk about actually banning it. Yet hundreds of organizations and thousands of people all over the country organized around the issue and held their elected officials accountable.

New York and Maryland have since banned fracking. Rep. Mark Pocan introduced legislation to ban fracking on federal lands. Banning fracking became a top issue raised by Sen. Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential race, and a majority of Americans now support a ban. It took lots of hard work, but the political consensus has shifted. We must do the same thing with the urgent need to act on climate, by building support for the OFF Act.

2) Make OFF a Top Issue Now

Even though Congress is controlled by pro-fossil fuel ideologues, it is still critical that we work to get members to sponsor this bill now. If we organize to get large numbers of co-sponsors on the OFF Act, it will become a top issue that representatives will need to respond to.

Even as it has just been introduced, the OFF Act already enjoys support from more than 100 organizations including a wide range of major national groups like National Nurses United, Progressive Democrats of America, Climate Justice Alliance, Indigenous Environmental Network and People’s Action.

3) Make Space for State and Local Action

At the same time we are working to build support for the OFF Act, there are also campaigns across the country working to move cities, counties and states to 100% renewable energy now. Organizing around these local efforts can and should dovetail with efforts to pressure members of Congress to co-sponsor federal legislation. Passing local measures, or getting state and local elected officials to sign the OFF Pledge, will help build the political power needed to push Congress to support the federal legislation. Similarly, getting more co-sponsors on federal legislation to stop fossil fuel projects will open up more space for state and local action. These efforts work together.

Winning the fight to move off fossil fuels will not be easy, as the thousands of people who are working to stop pipelines, ban fracking and build renewable energy projects can tell you. But these are also fights that we can – and must – win if we are to protect people and the planet and avoid the very worst of climate chaos. The OFF Act is a critical first step in what must be a major national mobilization to restructure our energy system now.

Visit www.offfossilfuels.org to get involved in your community and join our national volunteer team. Let’s make this happen.

It could mean extreme anti-establishment to some; it could mean violent anti-establishment. It might mean nihilist. It could mean the left that are divided from the other left (whatever that means).

The point is that it does not matter and it does not actually mean anything at all or it means anything you want it to mean. The alt right are people who call themselves that. We define them further but they are collectively something by their association that we seek to define and explain.

The alt left is a word but there is no group of people who associate with that word and therefore there is no possible definition nor a limit to any definition -- it is whatever the users of the word want it to be and can be applied to whomever they feel like. The word alt left is a right-wing word that we do not need and so the difficulty of defining it is not ours. when it is used in a serious context, it is only possible to say that there is no such movement, identity, or group but that it is an epithet to create a foil for the alt right, a collective word for left groups the right does not seek to understand or define, or a fantasy used to create an equivalency.

To examine if there is, or should be, an "alt-left" to act as a foil to the "alt-right", it's first necessary to understand who or what the alt-right is. And it's not enough to just say the alt-right is those who call themselves that - I would argue that Jordan Peterson is in a very real way the "archetypal" personification of part of the spirit of the alt-right, yet he considers himself a Liberal (which, as an aside, is hilarious because he has done and will continue to do unfathomable damage to that party).

To understand who or what the alt-right is, it's necessary to understand what is "alternative" about them, compared with the "normal" right. It's not that they're farther right, or more extreme. I genuinely believe they are actually less right wing than a traditional conservative, but that's not the point. Rather, they are alternative because they are operate in a completely different way than traditional conservatives. They hold strongly right-wing economic values (property rights, freedom of speech), on average they are centrist for social issues (but either hard "left" or hard "right" on each specific issue/minority group - for example they are very supportive of the LGB community but are highly critical of trans persons and those who identify as non-gender-binary or gender fluid or the like), but the most important aspect of the alt-right identity and what differentiates them from typical right wingers are the following two things:

First, they are not conservatives. Conservatives don't fight back. Conservatives don't have spines. They hold conservative values, in many cases, but they've watched conservative political "leaders" roll over every time they get called racist or sexist (etc) for the last couple of decades, even when said conservatives literally don't say anything racist or sexist. Conversely, the alt-right hold similar values but are willing - and moreover, they're eager - to defend those values, and unlike conservatives they don't give a rat's ass if you call them names for doing it. In fact, they have learned how to become more influential and garner more support the more they get attacked. It turns out that there really is no such thing as bad publicity, as long as you stand your ground. This is the part that applies to Jordan Peterson, in case that wasn't obvious.

Secondly, they are different from traditional conservatives in that they have embraced Saul Alinsky's 13 "Rules for Radicals", and most specifically number 4. They've noticed the uncountable hypocricies and cognitive dissonances of the left, and they know the tactics work (because they've been subject to them), and as an added bonus (for them) the left has dominated the discussion in academics, popular culture, and social media for so long that the left at any level (ie. Grassroots, academic, political) hasn't really figured out how to defend their ideas and positions when name calling (racist, sexist, homophobe, etc) doesn't work. This is particularly important because traditional conservatives have tried to win hearts and minds with rational arguments for decades, and it hasn't worked. The alt-right has realized that nobody gives an "ef" about the facts and has learned to appeal to emotion in the way that the left has been doing for decades.

The alt-right has effectively weaponized contradictions between different strains of left-wing belief systems to paint those on the left as unprincipled hypocrites. And I cannot overstate enough that the alt-right is growing not because of the alt-right's new argumentative strategy, it's growing because of the left's tendency to eat its own when two incompatible left-wing groups get distracted from their "common enemy" and turn on each other.

So Trump can go ahead and call people alt-left, par for the course for him really, but not only is there no such group, I don't even see where a void is that could be filled. The alt right could be loosely but quickly described as right wing beliefs with left wing tactics. Examining the social progress the left has made in the last 25 or so years, there is no question the left has had superior tactics, so the opposite, left wing beliefs with right wing tactics would be unlikely to succeed with anyone besides maybe a handful of academics - except that the vast majority of academics are already left-leaning so what's the point? Besides that, the alt-right holds the conservative (Republican) establishment in almost as much contempt as the liberal (Democratic) establishment, so a hypothetical alt-left would need to spend as much time calling out corrupt Democrats as Republicans. I'm not saying those elements don't exist on the left, but they don't exist among the leftists who have power and/or a widespread voice - and they would if there was a widespread demand among the left for them. Doesn't really seem to matter what the scandal is or who's implicated, if it's a democrat then the majority of the left tends to just sweep it under the rug. Conversely, many of those with large followings on the alt-right will call out unfaithful Republicans and even Trump himself when they betray expectations.

So, if it's not clear, I agree with you that there is not currently any such group as the alt-left. I agree that it's a right-wing word, aimed at creating more divisiveness among the left which is likely to exacerbate the problems facing the left at the moment and play into the hands of the alt-right. The last thing the left needs right now is more factions. And even if a new "alt-left" would be a net benefit, it's not clear how it would differentiate itself in an analogous way to how the alt-right differs from the traditional conservatives they've broken away from.

"This tweet is officially the end of any hope that anyone still had in SenSanders. John McCain is responsible for so much death, destruction and suffering. To say he has an ounce of 'integrity' let alone 'courage' , is immensely disgusting."

Bernie Sanders Gets Tough on Foreign Policy, Sounds Like a Presidential Candidate
With Clinton on a book tour and Obama silent, Sanders for now is Democratic party’s 'It' guy for battling President Trump – on both domestic and international issues

"Bernie Sanders is an imperialist, and therefore of the same general political species as Churchill, Clinton and Trump. Many of Sanders' leftish supporters cannot fathom how anyone could describe their hero as 'an imperialist pig'..."

Sanders’s central contribution is to upend the military-dominated definition of national security. He elevated the threats posed by climate change, which he noted is “real and already causing devastating damage.” Donald Trump, a climate-change denier, did not deign to mention the subject at all in his recent address to the United Nations.

Sanders also called out the threat posed by extreme inequality and the “movement toward international oligarchy” in which “a small number of billionaire and corporate interests have control over our economic life.” That’s not a new argument from Sanders, but here he explicitly framed it as a matter of national security. “This planet,” Sanders argued, “will not be secure or peaceful when so few have so much, and so many have so little…. There is no justification for the incredible power and dominance that Wall Street, giant multinational corporations and international financial institutions have over the affairs of sovereign countries throughout the world.” It is revealing that Trump, while trumpeting “America First” policies and state sovereignty in his address to the United Nations, made no mention of this reality.

Once again tells the truth about democratics. I just wish that I could quote the whole article. Whooa Bernie burns the Dem's again with the truth of course.

Sanders explained that the Democratic Party has shifted its focus to parts of the country where wealthy donors are concentrated. In doing so, Democrats have written off large regions of the United States, effectively ceding them to Republicans. “What has happened I think is the Democrats became a party of the upper middle-class on the West Coast in the East Coast, here in New York City, and they forgot. They forgot that while the economy under Obama did improve, surely from where he took over after the Wall Street debacle, the truth was and is that millions and millions of people are struggling to put food on the table.”

Sanders noted that economic despair is worsening for younger generations who are on a trajectory toward a lower standard of living than their parents. “That is the reality the Democrats kind of forgot about.” He added, “This is not complicated stuff. You have to address the people who are hurting right now. There is incredible pain in this country right now. Incredible pain.”

​I don't think that DEMS HQ will be sending sanders any thank you cards. If understand the article correctly 2018 elections could be disaster as 2016 elections for the dems.

Clinton really needs to go away. Not go away mad, but just go away! All that horseshit talk 'bout Sanders not being a Democrat, yet Clinton always came across as more Republican than Democratic, power hungry and a con artist.

Has Elizabeth Warren got the royal jelly to take on the GOP, Trump, breitbart, etc. and win the Presidency?

Asked if DNC system was rigged in Clinton's favor, Warren says 'yes'

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she believes that the Democratic National Committee was "rigged" in favor of former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 primary.

"We learned today from the former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile that the Clinton campaign in her view did rig the presidential nominating process by entering into an agreement to control day-to-day operations at the DNC," Tapper said, continuing on to describe specific arms of the DNC the Clinton camp had a say over, including strategy and staffing, noting that the agreement was "entered into in August of 2015," months before Clinton won the nomination.

Warren called that "a real problem."

"But what we've got to do as Democrats now, is we've got to hold this party accountable," Warren said.

The Massachusetts Democrat is seen as a possible presidential contender in 2020 and beyond.

Tapper then asked, "Do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?" And Warren responded simply: "Yes."

The question came up after Brazile's book excerpts were released this week, detailing the DNC's financial turmoil during the election and the role that the Clinton campaign played in aiding it financially.

"Debbie (Wasserman Schultz) was not a good manager," Brazile wrote in excerpts released in Politico on Thursday. "She hadn't been very interested in controlling the party -- she let Clinton's headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn't have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was."

Have Democrats learned their lesson? Not according to congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawai’i.

Gabbard took to YouTube this week to chide her party’s leaders for their ongoing efforts to shut down progressive dissent within the party.

“Last year’s presidential primary revealed deep divides within the Democratic Party that went far beyond substance of issue differences,” Gabbard said. “Now I wish I could sit here and say things have gotten better, but it’s just not true.”

Gabbard blasted the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and its new chairman Tom Perez for casting out progressives but allowing lobbyists and consultants to remain in power.

“The DNC’s move to cast out those who just haven’t fallen in line with the establishment and were actually demanding real reforms is destined for failure,” she said. “We must make sure our voices are heard now as we fight for a new path forward that is more inclusive and actually strengthens our democracy. It doesn’t matter who supported Hillary and who supported Bernie. It’s long past time to end the counterproductive infighting and name calling. What we’re talking about here is fighting for an open, inclusive, transparent Democratic Party that best represents and serves the people.”

“We must put people over profits and progress over special interests,” she said. “We can’t do this if you have just a few power brokers making deals in a back room. We can’t do this with a closed process or with superdelegates who can swing an election.”

We agree …

Gabbard is a radical liberal, and it is exceedingly rare we will find ourselves in agreement with her. But in this instance she is absolutely correct.

“Republicans” did everything within their power last year to quash the populism embodied (albeit yet-to-be-realized) in the person of Donald Trump. They failed. Democrats succeeded in putting down their populist revolt … but as Gabbard’s message makes clear, that victory has come at a cost.

Do any of these ideologies serve our nation’s long-term interests? We’re not sure …

This news site will continue to advocate for fiscal conservatism and free markets when it comes to bread-and-butter tax and spending policy … and will continue to champion individual liberty when it comes to social issues.

Where does that place us on the partisan/ ideological map? Who knows … and frankly, who cares.

In the meantime, though, props to Gabbard for speaking truth to power within her tribe.

Ok here’s the thing about socialism in the US. Real honest socialism! If there’s only 1 person that can make it popular in the third most populous country in the world, and that persons only chance is to join the democrats(whatever democrats means), then socialism is dead right from the word go!

socialism never had a chance. And even if it did, it would never be anything remotely similar to real socialism but a watered down version filled with a whole lots of Middle East imperialism to boot.

Of course Donna Brazille is correct - it's just too bad she didn't make the switch. But then again that was then and this is now. There is some talk now that Biden is considering making a run for the presidential nomination in the next election but does he have the royal jelly, and is he not too old?

If their nerves are a bit calmer two years from now, the reason might be Jay Inslee.

That’s assuming he runs for president, wins and carries through on the mission he says drives him most as governor of the state of Washington: climate change.

British Columbians may be familiar with Inslee, as he’s been popping up in their news lately. He’s a big booster of a high-speed rail line linking Portland to Vancouver. In March, he weighed in on the Trans Mountain pipeline, saying he hoped it would be stopped. And in December Inslee lent his support to the climate plan unveiled by the BC NDP government.

Warren is seeking the nomination, and so is Kamala Harris. I think Harris will make a better nominee, personally.

I think Harris might be a stronger vote getter than Warren, but in my opinion if elected she would be another Obama, in the sense of not doing anything to offend the billionaire class. Warren, on the other hand, might make some serious, New Deal style changes, over the wailing of the less enlightened oligarchs.

I think Harris might be a stronger vote getter than Warren, but in my opinion if elected she would be another Obama, in the sense of not doing anything to offend the billionaire class. Warren, on the other hand, might make some serious, New Deal style changes, over the wailing of the less enlightened oligarchs.